If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to Mac-Forums! Join us to comment and to customize your site experience! Members have access to different forum appearance options, and many more functions.

If one was to punish every frivolous law suit then wouldn't Apple be one of the most guilty out there? Not sure what this guy hopes to achieve in terms of damages as the iPhone only costs £499. Surely his legal expenses would exceed the value of the iPhone.

If one was to punish every frivolous law suit then wouldn't Apple be one of the most guilty out there? Not sure what this guy hopes to achieve in terms of damages as the iPhone only costs £499. Surely his legal expenses would exceed the value of the iPhone.

I believe you don't understand what a frivolous lawsuit really is.

A Frivolous Lawsuit is any legal claim that seems trivial and lacks merit. Often, an individual without legal counsel makes such a claim, and the claim is brought as a result of poor understanding for court processes and the law in general. The Prison Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 to prevent inmates from filing such lawsuits.
To avoid filing a Frivolous Lawsuit, Federal Law mandates an attorney to thoroughly research the legality of all claims. Failure to make such efforts can result in serious consequences for all persons involved, including the representing lawyer.

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

People think it's a quick and easy buck. I agree with the previously stated comment that we're talking about a beta product. If you do not wish to participate in a public beta, DON'T. Personally, there's nothing worse than a beta-tourist. They provide no value to the program.. at all.

I believe frivolous just about covers it from how you defined it. Would you say his claim, on the face of it, is with merit or is more than merely trivial? Not sure how you say it is not frivolous? My comment was merely a tongue in cheek remark considering Apples history of patent disputes with other rival firms. In any case I am assuming you are basing the fact that it is not frivolous on the basis that the claimant is represented by a lawyer. Does that mere fact stop something being frivolous?

There's an implied understanding that a frivolous lawsuit doesn't have serious purpose or value. Apple's lawsuits, while ridiculous, have cost companies millions of dollars. Quite a lot of value. They do, however abuse patent law regarding very fraudulent patents that never should have been granted in the first place. So I feel more comfortable calling Apple's lawsuits fraudulent in basis.

Apple is neither frivolous nor fraudulent. It's called going on the offensive to protect a patent given to you. It's also normal for a company to counter sue. Don't blame Apple for a patent, they were the one's seeking it, and someone gave it to them. They have all the reason to protect, and sue anyone that violates an order. What most people don't seem to realize is that suing someone doesn't mean you are out to sue for money. It means you are getting them to pay attention to the fact that you are encroaching on something they already created and patented. If we didn't have these things, we would live in a world similar to China and Korea where they have knock offs of just about everything imaginable.
I believe people make about a big deal about this because they just don't know about it all to well.

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

There's an implied understanding that a frivolous lawsuit doesn't have serious purpose or value. Apple's lawsuits, while ridiculous, have cost companies millions of dollars. Quite a lot of value. They do, however abuse patent law regarding very fraudulent patents that never should have been granted in the first place. So I feel more comfortable calling Apple's lawsuits fraudulent in basis.

Apologies, I thought you was on about the original thread topic being fraudulent. I prefer to see Apple as two companies. One company is purely creative, coming up with ideas to integrate technology to the masses with a view to making life better or more convenient. The second company is a bully that strangles the creative efforts of other technological companies through petty patent law disputes. Some may argue that patent law is not petty and I would agree. One has a right to defend their intellectual property rights. However Apple is a multi billion dollar company who can afford to have even the most trivial of patent law disputes dragging on through the courts for years and effectively making any technology that the original patent dispute was regarding outdated and no longer needed.

Apple is neither frivolous nor fraudulent. It's called going on the offensive to protect a patent given to you. It's also normal for a company to counter sue. Don't blame Apple for a patent, they were the one's seeking it, and someone gave it to them. They have all the reason to protect, and sue anyone that violates an order. What most people don't seem to realize is that suing someone doesn't mean you are out to sue for money. It means you are getting them to pay attention to the fact that you are encroaching on something they already created and patented. If we didn't have these things, we would live in a world similar to China and Korea where they have knock offs of just about everything imaginable.
I believe people make about a big deal about this because they just don't know about it all to well.

Apple created almost nothing they've been suing over to any more unique or creative a degree than the people they're suing created the products that are supposedly infringing. They even file lawsuits they have no way of winning just so they can strong-arm the competition with the legal costs. If anything, their despicable behavior highlights how badly patent law needs reform, as well as how little Apple cares for the good faith other tech companies have afforded it for the sake of not stifling innovation. I believe people defend Apple on this because they just don't know about it all too well.

But I feel like the thread has derailed quite a bit on this tangent as is. I think this guy's lawsuits has much more to do with the limits of advertising than it does anything regarding patent law.

Apologies, I thought you was on about the original thread topic being fraudulent. I prefer to see Apple as two companies. One company is purely creative, coming up with ideas to integrate technology to the masses with a view to making life better or more convenient. The second company is a bully that strangles the creative efforts of other technological companies through petty patent law disputes. Some may argue that patent law is not petty and I would agree. One has a right to defend their intellectual property rights. However Apple is a multi billion dollar company who can afford to have even the most trivial of patent law disputes dragging on through the courts for years and effectively making any technology that the original patent dispute was regarding outdated and no longer needed.

So, you're saying that, because they have more money, they should let other companies get away with copying? It's not illegal, or immoral for a company to fight for their properties that have been awarded to them. The problem is people pick on Apple because they are in the lime-light. If only you could see the greater picture...

Originally Posted by Discerptor

Apple created almost nothing they've been suing over to any more unique or creative a degree than the people they're suing created the products that are supposedly infringing. They even file lawsuits they have no way of winning just so they can strong-arm the competition with the legal costs. If anything, their despicable behavior highlights how badly patent law needs reform, as well as how little Apple cares for the good faith other tech companies have afforded it for the sake of not stifling innovation. I believe people defend Apple on this because they just don't know about it all too well.

But I feel like the thread has derailed quite a bit on this tangent as is. I think this guy's lawsuits has much more to do with the limits of advertising than it does anything regarding patent law.

I'm not saying that there aren't dumb patents that shouldn't have been awarded, but if you are awarded, you have every right to use every means to go about seeking retribution. You can cherry pick this argument to fit someone's motives, but it shouldn't be so complicated.

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

I'm not saying that there aren't dumb patents that shouldn't have been awarded, but if you are awarded, you have every right to use every means to go about seeking retribution. You can cherry pick this argument to fit someone's motives, but it shouldn't be so complicated.

Well, if you're going to make that the gold standard, bringing this back around to the actual thread topic, no one should be complaining about this guy's Siri lawsuit at all. Like Apple's lawsuits, it's technically legal and he has every right to use every means to go about seeking retribution.